this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
26 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3053 readers
249 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sunak Vs Starmer: The Argument in the Parliament.

I didn't see any pinned or stickied posts so here's one for the ~~shit posting~~ political discussion.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The ‘45 seconds to respond’ format was a mistake. Fewer topics with longer responses might actually have been interesting, but this stifled all opportunity for any thought to be expressed in anything more than trivial detail.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

It's the Twitter effect. Kids these days can't hold their attention for longer than 45 seconds.

shakes fist at clouds

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Strong agree

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The format excluded any proper discussion and left space only for the pre-rehearsed soundbites we all expect anyway. Combined with the ineffective moderation and the whole thing was a tedious watch, shambles over substance.

ITV took 70 minutes of my life and I want them back.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Sunak actually getting a clap from the audience after saying he won't bow to Junior Doctor Union demands of a 35% pay increase.

I'm actually surprised at that!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Doctors do become very well paid later in their careers as consultants so there is probably limited amount of sympathy for the rough years as junior doctors where they are significantly underpaid.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

That's true, however people can be junior doctors for a surprisingly long time so you can see why they are pissed off! I assumed it was the first 3 years after graduation or something until one of my friends who is a doctor explained it to me.

Junior doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training.

They have completed a medical degree and can have up to nine years' of working experience as a hospital doctor, depending on their specialty, or up to five years working and gaining experience to become a general practitioner (GP).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Docs have made a strategic mistake for striking in the middle of election when negotiations are impossible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

or they've made a great decision to embarrass this government just before an election and help to oust them

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Except they're not going to get anything from Labour either.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There is no government at the moment, parliament isn't sitting, there isn't a health minister, there is no one for the docs to negotiate with. All this does is further increase the backlog for operations which is not something that typically endears you to the public.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Most people understand that 35% is completely unreasonable, so I'm not surprised that the audience approve.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

Question two: Be honest about the NHS and what it's going to take to fix it.

Both candidates:

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Orange man: bad
Orange Britain: 👌

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Starmer hits a clanger on Sunak.

Starmer: Explain how the waiting figures are coming down, they were 7.2 million and now they're 7.5 million and he's supposed to be good at maths!

Sunak: B..B...But they came down from a higher figure before?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There’s hardly enough time for questions here, terrible debate

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Agreed. TV debates are more a test to the public of whether you sweat too much under studio lights these days.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's it! Thanks for playing. My summary:

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Yes, but your commentary was more entertaining than the event itself!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

I thought Starmer started off well but he's getting some push back from Rishi that he needs to tackle otherwise he's going to get swamped by Rishi's combative style. Round One pretty indecisive. 😕

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Moderator sounding like a stressed out supply teacher

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Thank you everyone for your comments. I wasn't going to watch and you've summarised nicely.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Okay, I'm now done watching too. I dunno if this is because I'm biased, but while neither performance was fantastic, Starmer overall came across better than Sunak. By the incredibly low standards set by politicians, Starmer seemed more honest, and I definitely noted him being irritated with some of Sunak's more blatant lies. Sunak came across as a smug public school boy who always feels like he has to be right. I was particularly not impressed with Sunak making out that Labour would require people to replace boilers and cars "when they don't need to", when it's bloody obvious that the plan would be to replace them with more climate-friendly options when existing stock wears out. I wish Starmer had been more deft in challenging him on that kind of bullshit.

Starmer's experience as a lawyer helped him here, I think. He's used to debating, although clearly he's more used to a courtroom where he can speak at length to make his point. He's not good at succinct so the 45 second time limit didn't give him a chance to do his best debating. Sunak treated it more as an argument where it was more important to win than to put across a serious and thoughtful point.

Overall, I'm not a huge fan of Starmer, but I'm still happy to say I would rather have him as prime minister than Sunak.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

GB Energy seems like a genuinely interesting idea from Labour. Say more on this old man! 😜

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Something like the third time Starmer has told us his dad was a tool maker.

🎶 My old man's a tool maker he wears a tool man's hat...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Second audience clap of the night is for Starmer's private school tax policy. 👏

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Rishi says you can vote for anyone apart from the Conservatives and it will count for Labour. Awesome, everyone vote with your conscious then.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In a post-Trump, post-Brexit, post-Johnson world, I thought journalists had gotten better at calling out direct lies. Yet the moderator allowed Sunak repeatedly to lie about Labour's tax plans and to lie that the Treasury backed those figures. Just outrageous.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

To be fair, so did Starmer.

I agree the moderator had a hard time getting anything of basic value from either candidate. But I wouldn't go so far as to say she encouraged Sunak's lies. She just wanted to get it over with.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

ӣ2000 worse off in taxes"

That's all he said wasn't it?

Unelected, jug-eared, toffy-nosed midget

Edit: From the BBC-

The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the Conservatives’ assessment of their tax plans "should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service".

The letter from James Bowler, the Treasury permanent secretary, risks undermining Rishi Sunak’s claim in last night’s debate that Labour’s plans include £38bn of uncosted spending, which he says would mean £2,000 of tax rises per working household.

In a letter to Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Bowler writes: "As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document 'Labour’s Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used ... the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party’s publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service".

"I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service," he adds.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He wanted to make it the slogan of the campaign and I think it probably will be, despite this revelation from the Treasury. Starmer really should have challenged this more robustly... or at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Changing planning laws! Why is this a throw away right at the end? FFS.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

And he already looks like a dweeb! Put him out of his misery and vote him out now!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Woeful so far. Both of them talking over each other in an abrasive way like this is a US presidential debate.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I didn't have high hopes for responses or even the questions for that matter. I'm in it for the gaffs. Hoping Starmer let's slip "you twat" in a hot mic moment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Rishi coming off better in this question of retirement tax than Starmer. All he has to say is "under Liz Truss, under Liz Truss". Poor from Starmer on that one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

It's ridiculous, Sunak is the person who froze the tax boundaries in the first place. Why isn't Starmer pointing that out?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I got home a bit late, so I'm streaming this on a 15 minute delay. So 10 minutes in, and Sunak really is pathetic. "Well actually, I do get it and you're wrong."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Question five: The climate.

More aspirations from Starmer here, which I suspect is going to be an overall winner on this topic. Sunak's go to answer is "no we can't afford it so I'm not going to do it" seems a bit wet in comparison.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

A quick fire round about education next with £140 up for grabs.....??

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

On the immigration question I think they both came out pretty well. Appealing to their core voters I must admit. But strong responses from the both of them. Hard to judge between them on this issue. Basically if you want to believe Rishi then Starmer isn't swaying you on this question, and if you want to believe Starmer then Rishi isn't persuading you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Rishi held his own pretty well on that

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Ooo apparently we can follow and comment on the debate wherever we are by using the hashtag #ITVDebate. Assuming that also means Lemmy..... 😉

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Question four: Why U so relaxed with genocide, innit?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Starmer says "we have to find a path to peace, we have to bring a permanent ceasefire"

Sunak says "I've made the decision to lead".

Tell us what you're going to actually do you fuckwits! Just question dodging as usual.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Difficult for them though isn't it? In reality, they can't do anything but line up behind any plausible peace proposal that is brokered by another country. We're not in a position to be the mediators this time.

They can't come out and say they will do something specific (unless it's just words, strongly condemn etc) because it will be hung around their necks when it doesn't happen.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Another quick fire round on The Donald. Fingers on your buzzers!

load more comments
view more: next ›